I have a question that remains unanswered:

[Truth7t7]

Where is this written, David?

Do not add to His words,
lest He rebuke you and prove you a liar.

1 John 5:7-8KJV
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

 

[BarneyFife]

Nehushtan

I'm not sure why you say remembering the brass serpent would help me. It was only a type/shadow of Christ, not Christ Himself, right? :)

 

[Wrangler]

You are throwing out the garbage along with the meal. Yes, the Father raised Christ from the dead. Yes, fathers live before their children. But where you miss the depth and beauty of the good news is the sacrifice made by the Father and Son. The eternal risk taken by both in order to save worms like me and you.

It is not beautiful but perverted. I'm not sure where this idea comes from that an all powerful, all knowing God takes risks. It is an impossibility. It is an impossibility.

Both, the beauty and sacrifice are a Diversion, for neither has anything to do with the 4th century man-made doctrine of the trinity.

 

[BarneyFife]

I'm not sure where this idea comes from that an all powerful, all knowing God takes risks. It is an impossibility. It is an impossibility.

How do you think sin was able to arise in a perfect universe? :)

 

[Wrangler]

We are one? People don't say that in this context--they say "We're of one mind." Your declaration doesn't make it figurative. Scripture is to be taken literally unless other interpretations are indicated.

And this is the most obvious passage in Scripture - besides John 1:1 - that demands to be taken figuratively. "We are one" DOES NOT MEAN we are one being. Never has. Never will.

And again, we know this from other Scripture. In John 17:22 Jesus says we are one as he and God are one. For consistency of trinitarian doublespeak, this means that all human beings are truly one human being, right? If not how is it different?

 

[BarneyFife]

I'm not sure where this idea comes from that an all powerful, all knowing God takes risks. It is an impossibility. It is an impossibility.

Free will has to have been a calculated risk. God does not let one of His character traits overrule another.

 

[Wrangler]

I don't take any one text as explicit or conclusive as teaching that God is three Persons. Poor hermeneutics

Wow! Your statement is the opposite of what I said.

No one said the statement in question is the only one you are taking to support your view. I'm saying the statement is NOT an explicit statement of your view.

There is NO verses that explicitly state your doctrine.

See the difference?

 

[Wrangler]

Baloney. Because you say so?

No. Because the Gospel of John says so.

When John 20:31 says everything I wrote was for X, logic dictates nothing he wrote was for non-X.

John is the most anti-trinitarian book in a collection of anti-trinitarian books.

 

[BarneyFife]

And this is the most obvious passage in Scripture - besides John 1:1 - that demands to be taken figuratively. "We are one" DOES NOT MEAN we are one being. Never has. Never will.

Again, your declaration does not make it so.

And again, we know this from other Scripture. In John 17:22 Jesus says we are one as he and God are one. For consistency of trinitarian doublespeak, this means that all human beings are truly one human being, right? If not how is it different?

It's different because you can't build a doctrine on one text.

 

[BarneyFife]

No one said the statement in question is the only one you are taking to support your view. I'm saying the statement is NOT an explicit statement of your view.

And I'm saying it doesn't matter. See the difference?

 

[BarneyFife]

When John 20:31 says everything I wrote was for X, logic dictates nothing he wrote was for non-X.

You can't even see the narrowness of your interpretation here, can you?

John is the most anti-trinitarian book in a collection of anti-trinitarian books.

Another declaration

 

[BarneyFife]

When John 20:31 says everything I wrote was for X

I think you're venturing over into some kind of ultra-literalism here, Wrangler. This verse is a summation and is expressing that everything written in the book (not everything he ever wrote, btw) collectively testifies to Christ's Messiahship. With that (ultra-literalist) kind of hermeneutic, one could attest that everything written in chapter 21 was not to testify to His Messiahship. This is one of the dangers of adhering to a stiff or biased type of interpretative practice that can inadvertently miss other schools of thought. There are basically (not comprehensively) 2 kinds of Bible study: proof-texting and wholistic. Neither should be used exclusively. You exhibit a tendency to object vehemently to any type of religious expression that isn't meticulously detailed and proper in your own eyes. Call this ad-hom or character assassination if you like. It just looks like you can't stand to have your path cut across.:)

 

[Wrangler]

How do you think sin was able to arise in a perfect universe? :)

With God’s blessing & curse.

Without writing a treatise, many theologians say God’s plan was established before Creation. His plan never changed but was revealed to us in His good time. And that plan accounted for our sinning.

 

[Wrangler]

You can't even see the narrowness of your interpretation here, can you?
Another declaration

Right is exceedingly narrow compared to wrong.

And yes, another declaration. What do you think the strongest anti-trinitarian book of the Bible is?

 

[Wrangler]

I think you're venturing over into some kind of ultra-literalism here, Wrangler. This verse is a summation and is expressing that everything written in the book (not everything he ever wrote, btw) collectively testifies to Christ's Messiahship. With that (ultra-literalist) kind of hermeneutic, one could attest that everything written in chapter 21 was not to testify to His Messiahship

Obviously, any interpretation that does not support the trinity has to be attacked.

We agree about the meaning of John 20:31 - for there is no other take of these explicit words. I think you have to admit it puts trinitarian misuse of John 1:1 on display as they try to use it to support a proposition other than what 20:31 testified to.

Regarding your speculative ‘could’ statement is a naked reliance on speculation.

Monotheists have explicit text. See my 3 questions you refuse to answer. Trinitarians only have speculation from figurative language.

 

[Wrangler]

It just looks like you can't stand to have your path cut across.:)

My path is the explicit Word of God. And I will not stand for it to be cut across. See Mark 7:13.

 

[Robert Gwin]

There is no such thing as human logic. There is only logic.

Exactly sir, 1+1+1=3 not 1

 

[Robert Gwin]

Your depreciating view of who Christ is, denies the Atonement. You make Him a mere angel. A creature. Let me explain why you deny the Atonement.
Jesus gave His life. The reason He was authorized to do so was because He had life... Immortal self existing life, the same life as the Father... Therefore had the power, the authority to give it up. His life was His own to do with as He willed.
An angel has no such authority. Because an angel is a created being, his life is not his own. He has no right to give his life away as it belongs to God.
From your post above I perceive your are not actually reading my posts properly. I find know what word you are referring to that you believe I need to study, not do I know what doctrine it is you think I'm defending. Í am not a trinitarian.

Jesus was not immortal sir, and he became a human, a sinless human as was Adam who sinned and lost life for us, Jesus as a perfect human was the corresponding (equal) sacrifice needed to buy back what Adam lost. It was soul for soul, not God for human, the ransom was equal to what was lost.

Jesus of course was created as the Bible teaches, only Jehovah always existed. I am not sure we will ever understand that.

 

[Robert Gwin]

And the sacraments too

I am not familiar with that term sir, what are sacraments?

 

[Brakelite]

It is not beautiful but perverted. I'm not sure where this idea comes from that an all powerful, all knowing God takes risks. It is an impossibility. It is an impossibility.

Both, the beauty and sacrifice are a Diversion, for neither has anything to do with the 4th century man-made doctrine of the trinity.

I agree. It is a denial of the trinity, not necessarily a denial of 3 persons in the Godhead. I think we need to understand what the trinity doctrine really is. It isn't just the 3 in 1 concept. It must also include an indivisible unity such as whereby no one member can ever separate himself from the other two. This idea denies the death of the Son, and His taking upon Himself the sins of mankind, which of necessity demands separation from His Father. And what's more, it must be the second death that Jesus experienced, as that is the death we need to be saved from. That second death is such that requires the one dying as having no hope of a resurrection. It is permanent. It is that death which Christ in His suffering and the weight of guilt and sin that He bore on the cross, He could not see a resurrection for Him, that His Father may reject His sacrifice. Yet He went ahead anyway for our sake. That's risk.

The trinity is proven false in light of the risk taken in redemption, and beauty of the inherent love and sacrifice and permanent human nature of the Son of God.
No risk? When you proposed to your wife, you were taking a risk. A risk your proposal would be rejected.
God took that same risk in giving man the choice to love or not. Love is not love unless given with a risk of rejection. Free will demands love is voluntary. That's risk.